If your safety nets are funded through underdeveloping the global south and stealing from it, and these same safety nets are eroding rather than strengthening, then it isn’t a legitimate comparison in the slightest. You keep ignoring imperialism when I bring it up, and that’s akin to saying that you can have a good quality of life in capitalism by being a capitalist.
The PRC was founded in the middle of the 20th century. Prior to its existence, China had been colonized by Britain and later Japan, and was kept as a semi-feudal backwater. The great states of China of the past had all but decayed into a shadow of their former selves through the century of humiliation. China did not truly begin its era of rapid development until it became socialist. The Nordics were beneficiaries of imperialism even prior to the founding of the PRC.
You’ve erased the scope and are trying to compare static snapshots rather than trajectories and systems. This erasure of context is the kind of vulgar materialism of pre-evolutionary biology that saw each animal as permanent and fixed, unchanging, rather than interrelated and constantly changing.
I mean we can’t really talk about future without it being just speculation, so right now is furthest we can go with actual numbers. Like said, theoretically China will be the best at some point but until then…
Finland got their independence in 1917, before that it was a colony and under foreign and imperialist rule. Finland went through a civil war and WW2 too. I wouldn’t call Finland old compared to the millennia spanning civilization that is China lol. Finns were sleeping in caves when China was already an empire conquering shit.
We can absolutely analyze historic trends to see where countries are heading, and to refuse to do so is again the same type of vulgar materialism that pre-evolutionary biologists were guilty of. History is not a series of static snapshots.
Finland in particular was largely agrarian in the beginning of the 20th century, but had become entrenched within the imperialist core by the time the PRC was founded, and was still more developed than China at the time of the PRC’s founding.
I have no idea why you keep dodging the imperialism point and acting like it doesn’t exist, that should disqualify a country from being included. If your cushier lifestyle is dependent on the immiseration of foreign countries then that isn’t a meaningful way to tell if capitalism works as a better system. Further, safety nets in Finland and the Nordics in general are eroding as imperialism is faltering. China isn’t imperialist, its gains come from its own working classes and not foreign plunder.
I mean you’re free to speculate about the future. Economists do it all the time and I don’t really trust that much, personally. Let’s talk when that speculation is actually true and China does beat the Nordics imo.
You’re taking a vulgar empiricist approach and denying the ongoing material processes and trends that point to decay in imperialist countries and the rise of socialist countries. If you only trust what you can directly see with your own eyes, then you deny evolution, geographical shifts, and other phenomena that require observation over an extended period. Again, you’re also choosing to ignore imperialism, that’s like saying capitalism works great because capitalists live great while ignoring the necessity of worker exploitation.
Are you denying evolution, geographical shifts, and the process of imperialism, or are just taking an agnostic stance while doubling down on ineffective methodology?
The fact that some predictions are wrong doesn’t mean we can’t analyze trends and trajectories, nor does it mean taking the opposite approach and focusing on static snapshots is better. Again, vulgar empricism denies evolution, geographic shifts, and imperialism. Are you denying evolution, geographical shifts, and the process of imperialism, or are just taking an agnostic stance while doubling down on ineffective methodology?
If your safety nets are funded through underdeveloping the global south and stealing from it, and these same safety nets are eroding rather than strengthening, then it isn’t a legitimate comparison in the slightest. You keep ignoring imperialism when I bring it up, and that’s akin to saying that you can have a good quality of life in capitalism by being a capitalist.
The PRC was founded in the middle of the 20th century. Prior to its existence, China had been colonized by Britain and later Japan, and was kept as a semi-feudal backwater. The great states of China of the past had all but decayed into a shadow of their former selves through the century of humiliation. China did not truly begin its era of rapid development until it became socialist. The Nordics were beneficiaries of imperialism even prior to the founding of the PRC.
You’ve erased the scope and are trying to compare static snapshots rather than trajectories and systems. This erasure of context is the kind of vulgar materialism of pre-evolutionary biology that saw each animal as permanent and fixed, unchanging, rather than interrelated and constantly changing.
I mean we can’t really talk about future without it being just speculation, so right now is furthest we can go with actual numbers. Like said, theoretically China will be the best at some point but until then…
Finland got their independence in 1917, before that it was a colony and under foreign and imperialist rule. Finland went through a civil war and WW2 too. I wouldn’t call Finland old compared to the millennia spanning civilization that is China lol. Finns were sleeping in caves when China was already an empire conquering shit.
We can absolutely analyze historic trends to see where countries are heading, and to refuse to do so is again the same type of vulgar materialism that pre-evolutionary biologists were guilty of. History is not a series of static snapshots.
Finland in particular was largely agrarian in the beginning of the 20th century, but had become entrenched within the imperialist core by the time the PRC was founded, and was still more developed than China at the time of the PRC’s founding.
I have no idea why you keep dodging the imperialism point and acting like it doesn’t exist, that should disqualify a country from being included. If your cushier lifestyle is dependent on the immiseration of foreign countries then that isn’t a meaningful way to tell if capitalism works as a better system. Further, safety nets in Finland and the Nordics in general are eroding as imperialism is faltering. China isn’t imperialist, its gains come from its own working classes and not foreign plunder.
I mean you’re free to speculate about the future. Economists do it all the time and I don’t really trust that much, personally. Let’s talk when that speculation is actually true and China does beat the Nordics imo.
You’re taking a vulgar empiricist approach and denying the ongoing material processes and trends that point to decay in imperialist countries and the rise of socialist countries. If you only trust what you can directly see with your own eyes, then you deny evolution, geographical shifts, and other phenomena that require observation over an extended period. Again, you’re also choosing to ignore imperialism, that’s like saying capitalism works great because capitalists live great while ignoring the necessity of worker exploitation.
I’m sure your theory and methodology is fine. I just don’t trust much in that sort of speculation tbh.
Are you denying evolution, geographical shifts, and the process of imperialism, or are just taking an agnostic stance while doubling down on ineffective methodology?
Like said, I’m sure it’s a good theory and all. I’m just cautious about trusting that sort of predictions. They don’t always pan out quite as predicted.
The fact that some predictions are wrong doesn’t mean we can’t analyze trends and trajectories, nor does it mean taking the opposite approach and focusing on static snapshots is better. Again, vulgar empricism denies evolution, geographic shifts, and imperialism. Are you denying evolution, geographical shifts, and the process of imperialism, or are just taking an agnostic stance while doubling down on ineffective methodology?